2024 Chevrolet Traverse brakes problems

Filed Nov 5, 2026 · Brakes, Electrical · FL

My 2024 Traverse wore through 3 new batteries from the purchase date, XXX; to XXX; to XXX, when I was soon to enter XXX for my return trip home. All lights lit up; check ESC; steering/braking difficult; “bolted” upon acceleration at green light; pulling to side; told “not safe to drive” when I managed to get into Palm Chevy in [XXX] that I knew was close to my I-75 destination. Going 60-70 mph could have caused a bad accident, as control was difficult. The 1st similar episode not as severe was XXX. Both times the battery was discharging on the monitor. The 1st time XXX, I went to dealer, Bob Steele Chevy, [XXX] because I was planning an auto train trip to the northeast, concerned for safety. I now see WHY they did not put notes concerning that visit. They said I needed a new battery and charged me over $ 306 for it, stating another 30 months warrantee like the first battery, which they did not honor XXX, anyway. I now recognize why they did not put in notes. This recent failure occurrence was XXX, on a round trip from [XXX] (home) to [XXX]. In [XXX], Palm Chevy said it was not safe to drive the car back to [XXX]. I had AAA tow the car to Bob [XXX] Chevy and I rented a car to drive home. I called GM, so far have got nowhere with GM fluffing it off as no problem, which is why I am filing this complaint. I cannot in good conscience turn this car in for resale without discovery as to the source of the power drain. [XXX] said it needs a new battery again. Said there is nothing wrong with the car. Even I know a new car should not use up 3 batteries when they are boasting a 30-month warrantee. [XXX] says they cannot reproduce the problem. Of course not. They put a new battery unapproved, before getting to the bottom of the problem as to WHY the battery is wearing prematurely and left out note. No outside source inspected vehicle; it sits at [XXX]. Pls. help. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Filed Nov 2, 2026 · Brakes, Electrical · CA

*What component failed:* Brake System Control Module / Brake System Control Module communication. DTCs U0073 (Control Module Communication Bus A Off), U1610, U053B — Permanent codes. Vehicle has been at dealer 4 times for same brake system failure since purchase at 26,000 miles, now 31,290 miles. Current RO XXX replaced Brake System Control Module and programmed. Failed again XXX, 2 days later, same brake warning and same Permanent codes. Vehicle currently at Rotolo Chevrolet, [XXX]. Dealer tech [XXX] submitted TAC case to GM engineering for assistance. Component is available for inspection at dealer upon request. *How safety was at risk:* The brake got very hard i almost crashed with my family in the car on the freeway, they ended up replacing brake module and it happened again. *Has problem been reproduced/confirmed by dealer:* Yes — Confirmed and reproduced by Rotolo Chevrolet 4 times for same brake issue within 5,000 miles. Last repair replaced module, problem returned in 2 days with Permanent codes. Dealer confirmed failure and submitted TAC case to GM on XXX stating "a lot of back and forth with GM" needed. *Has vehicle been inspected by manufacturer:* Yes — Inspected and repaired by GM authorized dealer Rotolo Chevrolet. GM Technical Assistance Center (TAC) case opened by dealer and under review by GM engineering. *Warning lamps/symptoms prior to failure:* Brake system warning lamp, service brake system message, multiple Permanent DTCs U0073, U1610, U053B stored. First occurrence XXX at 31k miles, second occurrence 10/29/25 two days after module replacement. Symptoms: brake warning on dash, codes return immediately after clearing Permanent status. Vehicle originally was Manufacturer Buyback for loose sway bar links Its again at the dealer waiting for tac INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Filed Oct 28, 2026 · Brakes, Electrical · FL

1. What component or system failed or malfunctioned, and is it available for inspection upon request? Multiple critical factory components and electronic systems failed or malfunctioned on this vehicle: • Electronic Brake Control / eBoost Software System: The factory brake-life tracking software severely malfunctioned, miscalibrating the braking system metrics. Furthermore, despite subsequent system recalibration confirming over 90% friction material life remaining, the braking system continues to suffer from persistent, severe brake noise. • Exhaust / Emissions System: A premature mechanical failure occurred in the exhaust system, resulting in a loud passenger muffler defect. • Electrical Charging System: The primary vehicle battery suffered from a premature voltage drop/depletion and completely failed standard diagnostics. • Restraint System: The third-row head restraints suffered from a factory defect causing them to jam (subject to active Customer Satisfaction Program N262558680). • Inspection Availability: Yes. The vehicle, its electronic systems, and all diagnostic readouts/replaced components are fully available for physical or electronic inspection upon request. 2. How was your safety or the safety of others put at risk? Safety was compromised across multiple vectors: • Braking Unpredictability: Driving a family vehicle with an active, unaddressed brake system software defect and ongoing noise creates extreme uncertainty regarding emergency stopping capabilities and electronic brake-assist behavior. • Crash Injury Hazards: The jammed third-row head restraints directly compromise the effectiveness of the vehicle’s passive restraint system, increasing the risk of severe whiplash or head injuries to rear passengers (including children) in a collision. • Uncontrolled Stranding: The combination of a depleted primary battery and severe system faults puts occupants at risk of sudden electrical failure or entering "limp mode," risking power loss in high-speed or

Filed Oct 6, 2026 · Brakes, Driver assistance · MO

When I am in reverse, the car will slam on the brakes without warning even without a hazard or object in the way.

Filed Oct 6, 2026 · Brakes · MO

When I purchased my car, I was given an alert from the brake sensor that the front pads needed service. I returned the car to the dealer and they were able to reset the alert. A few months later, I got another alert that the front brake pads were at 18%. My car was still under warranty and the brake sensors in the front were replaced, but the software update was not installed at this time. A few months after that, I got another alert that my front brake pads needed to be replaced. I took it up to the dealership and they finally performed the software update. This time my warranty was out, so I had to pay $424 for the software update for the brake sensors. This should be a recall. There is already a service alert: [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Filed Sep 29, 2026 · Brakes, Electrical · IL

Master cylinder failure on interstate caused complete loss of braking. No accident. Shop replaced master cylinder per GM bulletin. Warning light for brake assist failure came on and pedal went to the floor. This could’ve ended in a mass casualty situation, thank god we were in wide open territory and could coast to a stop which took over a mile in neutral.

Filed Sep 21, 2026 · Brakes, Electrical · NC

There has been multiple times that the Brake system fails and different codes on dashboard pop up which makes brakes not work and looses power train , the vehicle has to be put in neutral in order to stop on highways and roads which has put my life in danger

Filed Sep 3, 2026 · Brakes, Electrical · CA

The Defective Software Trigger: vehicle’s dashboard Brake Pad Life Monitor indicated the pads were low showing 19% roughly 3.5-4mm remaning life. Upon arrival to the dealership, I was informed that my rotors would also need to be resurfaced. I contested a mandatory rotor resurfacing policy. I openly disagreed with this arbitrary "store policy" but was forced to comply to get my vehicle serviced. The dealership stated they would refuse to replace the pads unless I paid out-of-pocket for an unnecessary resurfacing. The technician measured my pads at 7mm (over 60% of usable life remaining). My vehicle did not need brakes; it was suffering from a known factory software bug detailed in GM Bulletin 25-NA-029. Rather than identifying this warranty glitch, I was forced to pay for unnecessary vehicle repairs. The technician machined my front rotors and installed new pads. On my way home, the vehicle exhibited severe, violent steering wheel shaking under braking at highway speeds. The technician completely failed to check for runout or machine the rotors evenly. I was forced to drive 90 miles home with a violently vibrating steering system. I called the dealership but the facility was closed. To correct a severe safety hazard caused entirely by the shop, I had to drive an additional 90 miles back to the dealership (a 180-mile total round trip) on compromised brakes. I requested that the dealership replace the ruined rotors and pads at their expense. Management refused instead, to force the shaking to stop and avoid paying for hardware, the dealership refunded the original resurfacing fee (Driver side rotor 29.89mm to 1st resurface 29.20m- Passenger side 29.80mm to 1st resurface 29.25mm) and machined my front J61 rotors a Second time, cutting them down to 27.80mm Driver side and 27.59 mm on my passenger side. I have contacted corporate but I've had no resolution.

Filed Aug 24, 2026 · Brakes, Electrical · 43,632 miles · TX

The contact owns a 2024 Chevrolet Traverse. The contact stated that the rear driver's side window failed to open or close while depressing the buttons on the driver's door and on the passenger's door to control the window. While depressing the brake pedal to attempt to slow down, and while in reverse, the brakes were squeaking. The vehicle was not taken to the dealer for the window failure. The dealer diagnosed that the brake pads had failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was informed of the issue. The failure mileage was approximately 43,632.

Filed Aug 13, 2026 · Brakes · NY

There was a sent out that GM dealers needed to at no cost provide the software update to several vehicles due to a software issue that puts out an emergency warning that the brakes are wearing and are critically low when in fact they are not. Without the new software vehicle owners cannot manually reset the notification even after changing their brakes. I recently took my truck to David Chevrolet who advised me I needed to pay $193 for this software update which goes against the notice from GM and the DOT. I’m now driving without my brake monitoring system on because the dealership will not update my software. I’m filing a complaint because I should not need my brakes changed again by the dealership as I have already replaced perfectly good brakes because I didn’t know there was a software problem. My vehicle is well under the 36k mile and is only two years old.